Introduction.
In 2004 the Belgian Healthcare Knowledge Centre (KCE) made the choice of EndNote as its reference manager software among a list of 6 candidates. Since then, the software has been updated twice up to the EndNote X4 version.
Today, we are considering an update of our software but as a public institution depending on public funding, the KCE has to take part of a global effort to reduce costs in public sector. Among other actions, the move to open source software is considered whenever
possible. As an important tool in the publication process, the reference software should not be replaced without a thoroughful evaluation. Other aspects than licence cost must be considered, such as features and training. The presentation will describe the steps in this evaluation process, with an emphasis on the retained evaluation criteria in order to answer the following question Is Zotero or Mendeley a good alternative to Endnote for our team?.

Methods.
In order to evaluate possible candidates rigorously and with an Evidence-Based mindset, we designed a methodology based on an analytic hierarchy process. To do so we defined a set of features of the different aspects perfect reference management software should have to meet our institution needs.
Features were grouped in higher categories: user interface, collaboration, import and export, publishing,performances and scalability, security, documentation and budget. A weight was assigned to each feature in order to compute a score for each software and to choose the one with the highest score as our new reference management software. Some of the features were considered as critical and all candidates must comply with our needs for these features. These critical features are the handling of big databases (at least
3000 references) and the ability to design custom import and export filters.

Conclusions.
The evaluation procedure we decided to follow has been shorter than we expected. Indeed, the main competitors to EndNote X7 failed quickly due to weaknesses on features we consider as critical: performances and custom importation filters. Endnote X7 is for now the reference management software which, even if not perfect, fulfil our needs at best. As the softwares in this domain quickly evolve we keep looking at the upgrades and new software coming on the market.

Introduction.
In 2004 the Belgian Healthcare Knowledge Centre (KCE) made the choice of EndNote as its reference manager software among a list of 6 candidates. Since then, the software has been updated twice up to the EndNote X4 version.
Today, we are considering an update of our software but as a public institution depending on public funding, the KCE has to take part of a global effort to reduce costs in public sector. Among other actions, the move to open source software is considered whenever
possible. As an important tool in the publication process, the reference software should not be replaced without a thoroughful evaluation. Other aspects than licence cost must be considered, such as features and training. The presentation will describe the steps in this evaluation process, with an emphasis on the retained evaluation criteria in order to answer the following question Is Zotero or Mendeley a good alternative to Endnote for our team?.

Methods.
In order to evaluate possible candidates rigorously and with an Evidence-Based mindset, we designed a methodology based on an analytic hierarchy process. To do so we defined a set of features of the different aspects perfect reference management software should have to meet our institution needs.
Features were grouped in higher categories: user interface, collaboration, import and export, publishing,performances and scalability, security, documentation and budget. A weight was assigned to each feature in order to compute a score for each software and to choose the one with the highest score as our new reference management software. Some of the features were considered as critical and all candidates must comply with our needs for these features. These critical features are the handling of big databases (at least
3000 references) and the ability to design custom import and export filters.

Conclusions.
The evaluation procedure we decided to follow has been shorter than we expected. Indeed, the main competitors to EndNote X7 failed quickly due to weaknesses on features we consider as critical: performances and custom importation filters. Endnote X7 is for now the reference management software which, even if not perfect, fulfil our needs at best. As the softwares in this domain quickly evolve we keep looking at the upgrades and new software coming on the market.

Introduction. The Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center (KCE) is a federal institution established in 2003 that produces studies and reports to advice policy-makers about health care and health insurance. Aims. To describe a model of tools that allows to look at what is said about an organisation on the web and social media and expose the experience gained after more than one year of testing.

Methods. A general model of monitoring has been defined and produced with a selection of free web tools as modular elements. In a second step, queries have been created to monitor the impact of the institution, or a specific publication. Identified items are curate by the librarian for dissemination to the patrons through various channels. Use and utility of the curated items have been evaluated through a survey of patrons.

Discussion. After one year of operations, the system allowed to identify 924 items related to our institution or its scientific reports; from them 229 were not already identified through a standard press review. The communication manager at the origin of the project was very pleased with these results.
They permitted to identify unexpected groups debating on our reports; also false information was identified, and corrected by the editors. The selection of information sources and the tools maintenance requires a significant time investment. In addition, the use of free tools, that can be seen as an advantage, must be weighed against a possible lack of continuity or maintenance. However, failing
applications can be replaced by an equivalent; but not necessarily with exactly the same options. The three types of audiences targeted by the tool does not valued it in the same way. The management accesses to the information but items are rarely useful. For the researchers the information proposed is interesting but rarely useful in their daily work environment. The staff of the institution in its majority doesnt consult it.

Conclusions. The modular structure has proven its effectiveness, but the workload is high and the benefits for customers are not always obvious. In the specific context of our institution, the balance cost / benefit is not fully visible and should lead to assess the interest of maintaining these tools. But from a broader point of view, free tools helped to test the need without having to buy costly professional tool.

Introduction. The Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center (KCE) is a federal institution established in 2003 that produces studies and reports to advice policy-makers about health care and health insurance. Aims. To describe a model of tools that allows to look at what is said about an organisation on the web and social media and expose the experience gained after more than one year of testing.

Methods. A general model of monitoring has been defined and produced with a selection of free web tools as modular elements. In a second step, queries have been created to monitor the impact of the institution, or a specific publication. Identified items are curate by the librarian for dissemination to the patrons through various channels. Use and utility of the curated items have been evaluated through a survey of patrons.

Discussion. After one year of operations, the system allowed to identify 924 items related to our institution or its scientific reports; from them 229 were not already identified through a standard press review. The communication manager at the origin of the project was very pleased with these results.
They permitted to identify unexpected groups debating on our reports; also false information was identified, and corrected by the editors. The selection of information sources and the tools maintenance requires a significant time investment. In addition, the use of free tools, that can be seen as an advantage, must be weighed against a possible lack of continuity or maintenance. However, failing
applications can be replaced by an equivalent; but not necessarily with exactly the same options. The three types of audiences targeted by the tool does not valued it in the same way. The management accesses to the information but items are rarely useful. For the researchers the information proposed is interesting but rarely useful in their daily work environment. The staff of the institution in its majority doesnt consult it.

Conclusions. The modular structure has proven its effectiveness, but the workload is high and the benefits for customers are not always obvious. In the specific context of our institution, the balance cost / benefit is not fully visible and should lead to assess the interest of maintaining these tools. But from a broader point of view, free tools helped to test the need without having to buy costly professional tool.